Why won't the AGW deniers accept the the effectiveness of CO2?

I am in no way a "denier," as you refer to them and am equally annoyed by their tactics, complete lack of scientific thought, and faulty, if not ridiculous, evidence they use (if any).

However, I don't think that simple experiment tells us much of anything. CO2 is one of a million factors in the equation. If they deny that CO2 traps heat they're retarded, but it's just not scientific to say that this "proves" anything other than the fact that CO2 traps heat.

The climate system is infinitely complicated. It takes people that have been studying it for years, or even a lifetime, to even begin to fathom the complexity--let alone begin to model it.

We're getting better at it all the time, but beakers and a lamp aren't going to get us anywhere. Trying to convince a vocal 5% that will never be convinced is simply like beating your face against a wall. My only concern is that people as clueless as they are will get on here and believe them.

Edit: To Jim Below--You may be correct that CO2 has not driven climate in the past (temperature and CO2 have unquestionable tracked together, but one cannot say that one caused the other with any certainty), but one cannot say that it will not affect the climate in the future. The change in CO2 concentrations we have experienced in the last half-century is unprecedented.

"The atmosphere is the lowest layer"

The lowest layer of what?

edit:

"Atmosphere, in the thermosphere, lowest layer.... you know thermosphere, stratosphere, mesophere.... Come on guys..."

This is a jumbled mess. The exosphere, ionosphere, thermosphere, mesosphere, stratosphere, and troposphere are all layers of the atmosphere. Most CO2 resides in the troposphere, which is the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The atmosphere isn't the lowest layer of anything.

Anyhow, I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but your little experiment provides nothing useful. It doesn't even show that CO2 is efficient at "retaining heat", as you put it.

"And as far as my credability, I assure you it is well established more than most people that post here. I am on my senior year Earth Science BS."

With all due respect, this is hard to believe, based mostly on this post. Not that Earth Science majors are supposed to have a great understanding of basic thermodynamics, but I expect a little better.

--------

Edit2:

DaveH wrote

"How much heat does CO2 retain in the atmosphere in comparison to the Nitrogen?"

Considering Nitrogen does not really react with IR radiation, and thus it does not really "retain heat", it isn't really a fair comparison.

Randall wrote

"CO2 traps heat - it's an insulator. Insulators have diminishing returns - - i.e., if I had no insulation on my house and installed one layer, it would make a significant difference. A second, a less significant difference. A third, noticeable but perhaps not significant. The difference between seventh and eighth layers would not be noticeable."

Yes, that is the whole idea behind climate sensitivity--a doubling of CO2 from 100ppm to 200ppm would cause a warming of ~1 K, if all else stays the same. A doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm would cause the same amount of warming: ~1 K. So it requires more CO2 to cause the same amount of warming.

-------

Edit3:

"It has nothing to do with how CO2 or N work in the atmosphere as greenhouse gasses or otherwise. I was just pointing out that if the “heat retaining” properties of CO2 were significant in the atmosphere, then it might be worth looking at some of the other gasses before you claim CO2 is King, (I only said “heat retaining”, IR absorption is of course quite different.)"

I agree that triphip's experiment is measuring SHC, and is not relevant to GW.

That is equivalent to the first test the teacher gave us in 6th grade science basics. But the kicker was the second one where she pointed out the basic fallacy of the original test.

There is no glass roof to hold the heat in.

Without the roof the co2 can radiate the heat in all directions so only a small portion returns to be reflected off the earth again.

Co2 stays close to the ground and only rises high if there is a sun driven hot updraft to lift it there and then it rapidly sinks back close to the earth again.

In navy fire fighting school we were warned of the danger of being in a low area without good ventilation when fighting electrical fires with Co2 extinguishers. This is why co2 is fantastic for fighting certain kinds of enclosed fires, it will lay right down over it and smother it out. All co2 within a few hours of its production will be within a few of the ground and never more than a couple of hundred feet above the ground. This is why for people with even a small reasonable education on the subject the AGW arguments just do not make good or scientific sense.

Added comment

And it is the plastic cup you are using that is retaining the heat, not the Co2. Get rid of the cup and use a deep open topped sink and repeat your experiment. Then direct a low speed fan into the sink to simulate real world events and check it again. You will find no retention of heat this way unless the heat lamp is able to evaporate enough water to build up reasonable humidity in the sink to hold the heat.

CO2 traps heat - it's an insulator. Insulators have diminishing returns - - i.e., if I had no insulation on my house and installed one layer, it would make a significant difference. A second, a less significant difference. A third, noticeable but perhaps not significant. The difference between seventh and eighth layers would not be noticeable.

Venus for example has an atmosphere with 2,500 times higher CO2 concentration than our atmosphere - and it's about 15 times hotter.

We've increased the Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration by 30%.

Sorry, it's like saying "mercury is poisonous, therefore if I break a thermometer and pour it into the reservoir in Central Park, I'll kill everyone on the Upper East Side."

It's true that we can't automatically rule out CO2 as the, or a, causal factor in the modest 20th century warming - - - but it's also true that we certainly can't automatically infer it.

And that inference is the entire case for man-made global warming.

Your experiment has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect of CO2, or global warming. Your experiment demonstrates the different specific heat capacites of the two gasses.

EDIT “this question is just based on the effectiveness of CO2 retaining heat. It's obvious to me that a lot of people don't even know this”

The earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen. The SHC of nitrogen is 1.04 kj/kg. The density of Nitrogen is 1.21 g/l.

CO2 is about 380 ppm of the atmosphere. The SHC of CO2 is 0.84 kj/kg. The density of CO2 is 1.98 g/l.

How much heat does CO2 retain in the atmosphere in comparison to the Nitrogen? (try not to lose track of the zero’s after the decimal point). Your " credability" speaks for itsself.

Bob326. Please don’t misunderstand what I was saying.

You say “Considering Nitrogen does not really react with IR radiation, and thus it does not really "retain heat", it isn't really a fair comparison.”

I agree completely.

I was simply responding to the experiment offered by triphip2. His/her experiment demonstrates the comparative Specific Heat Capacities of CO2, vs Air. It has nothing to do with how CO2 or N work in the atmosphere as greenhouse gasses or otherwise. I was just pointing out that if the “heat retaining” properties of CO2 were significant in the atmosphere, then it might be worth looking at some of the other gasses before you claim CO2 is King, (I only said “heat retaining”, IR absorption is of course quite different.)

I think you meant to say AGW skeptics, right?

I have not read an answer saying that CO2 does not retain heat, it is after all, a greenhouse gas.

Did you carefully read why your answer was chosen as best answer?

Do some research about :

- % of CO2 in the atmosphere

- of that amount of CO2, what's the % coming from human emissions, and the % of natural CO2

And keep on with your research before making your next "baby step".

I can help addressing the issue of being misled by providing sites with better information than the ones you have apparently been exposed to:

http://co2science.org/index.php

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-glo...

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html#seasons

The water vapour in you expeiment caused the reaction, not the CO2, so you experiments says we should be 400 F here on earth because of the water cycle.

What you need to do is scale up your experiment and have a 1000 gallon of water and a 4 square inch area with a single lamp.

All your describing is a closed looped system, it doesn't work that way. In other words energy and gases are freely exchanged between all layers of the atmosphere and beyond, see(exosphere). Though certain gases are restrictive energy isn't. Thus the hypothesis of CO2's retentive value as a selective absorber.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas. There are other greenhouse gases. If you bothered to study the science, particularly the relationship with past CO2 and climate change, there is no way you would conclude that CO2 drives climate. Suggesting it suddenly does now is more about wishful thinking (deluded thinking) by those that have a problem with free enterprise and fossil fuels. Sargent sweet is right about a few things. It isn't infinitely complex, but it is certainly has complexity there we don't fully understand. Infinite is an absolute. Obviously if it were infinitely complex, it would be impossible to study and model. We are certainly making progress but we still have a lot to learn..

Your experiment is wrong. You're using far too much co2. The test is rigged in your favor. Use far less co2, like 300ppm. You will see that this does nothing to temperatures.

Prove so called "Global Warming" is real. Tell us how warm it will be in the future and how you came to that conclusion.

[Edit] The first 20ppm of co2 causes over 50% of any warming. The effect of co2 decreases rapidly after that. The amount of co2 man has contributed to the atmosphere has had little to no effect on the climate.